Nearly 30 years on.......why hasn't Pakistan won a World Cup since 1992?

[ishtiaq_ctg]

They should've won 1999 final. Opportunity missed.

Pakistan's ODI team was always in transition after the retirements of Anwar, Wasim, Waqar etc.

They are starting to rise again due to Babar, Fakhar, Imam, and Shaheen.

They were steamrolled in that 99 final. You sound like the team of Warne, Mcgrath, Gilchrist, Waugh brothers Ponting was somehow an afterthought. They would've beaten Pakistan 9/10 times in those conditions as was evident by the natwest final of 01 at lords where Pakistan again were beaten by 9 wickets.

 

[TheSultan]

They were steamrolled in that 99 final. You sound like the team of Warne, Mcgrath, Gilchrist, Waugh brothers Ponting was somehow an afterthought. They would've beaten Pakistan 9/10 times in those conditions as was evident by the natwest final of 01 at lords where Pakistan again were beaten by 9 wickets.

That’s a bit chicken n egg. The NatWest final was a scar from the World Cup final.

9/10 times doesn’t come in to it in a knock out tournament. Are you good enough to beat the other team, the answer is a resounding yes as they already beat them in a close group game.

Australia had the momentum and Pakistan probably still would have lost had they been at their best that day. But to say Pakistan didn’t have a chance is wrong.

I think the real disappointment was that Pakistan folded so easily so they couldn’t test the resolve of the Australians if the match got close.

It’s not as if Pakistan got out only due to the irresistible brilliance of Mcgrath, Warne, Waugh brothers, Gilly etc. Some of our players threw their wickets away to Reiffel, Fleming and Tom Moody and to some shoddy shots! It’s shameful really that Pakistan folded so easily in that manner.

 

[Babeikh]

You basically win the world cup in one of two ways:

1. Be the best team in the world by some distance to the extent that no matter what other teams do or try, you will always have an edge over them. West Indies 75, 79 and Australia 03 and 07 are examples of this.

2. There isn't an outright standout team so the team that comes together, gets into good form and gets momentum at the right time wins.

Since 92 we have come close in 99 and 2011. Of the two 99 is the one we probably should have won as on paper it was a very good team but we never really clicked in that world cup post the Bangladesh game. 2011 we just didn't have an edge, a player who could take the game by the scruff of the neck. Looking back I am surprised we reached the semi final to be honest. There were signs in 2019 that we were coming together and clicking at the right time but sadly our poor start meant we were too reliant on other results and they didn't go our way.

 

[Shafi]

Teams like Australia, India, NZ and England are miles ahead of us. Apart from Babar, Miandad, Saeed Anwar and Yousuf none of our batsmen can even make into those team's squad. Bowling is pretty average.

 

[sweep_shot]

They were steamrolled in that 99 final. You sound like the team of Warne, Mcgrath, Gilchrist, Waugh brothers Ponting was somehow an afterthought. They would've beaten Pakistan 9/10 times in those conditions as was evident by the natwest final of 01 at lords where Pakistan again were beaten by 9 wickets.

Pakistan beat Australia in the group stage.

Aussies were not that strong back then. They almost lost against South Africa too but they choked.

Pakistan were the better team in the final on paper but they somehow lost.

 

[Buffet]

Pakistan beat Australia in the group stage.

Aussies were not that strong back then. They almost lost against South Africa too but they choked.

Pakistan were the better team in the final on paper but they somehow lost.

Aus almost lost against SA and that makes Pakistan better?

Pakistan lost against SA
Pakistan lost against Ind
Pakistan lost against BD

Before losing finals to Aus.

 

[sweep_shot]

Aus almost lost against SA and that makes Pakistan better?

Pakistan lost against SA
Pakistan lost against Ind
Pakistan lost against BD

Before losing finals to Aus.

I have watched World Cup 1999 live.

Pakistan had the strongest team. Both Pakistan and South Africa had better teams than Australia.

 

[Nasty Naz]

I have watched World Cup 1999 live.

Pakistan had the strongest team. Both Pakistan and South Africa had better teams than Australia.

Was it? They had a terrible opener in Wasti whose SR was Test level in ODI's.

They somehow had Razzaq batting 3rd for them which absolutely made no sense and he was terrible at that position. Shockingly played 27 matches at #3 with a Test level SR (55) and rubbish average (27).

Laughable top order unit. However, their bowling group was superb and that is what got them into the finals.

 

[sweep_shot]

Was it? They had a terrible opener in Wasti whose SR was Test level in ODI's.

They somehow had Razzaq batting 3rd for them which absolutely made no sense and he was terrible at that position. Shockingly played 27 matches at #3 with a Test level SR (55) and rubbish average (27).

Laughable top order unit. However, their bowling group was superb and that is what got them into the finals.

Wasti and Abdur Razzaq were fine for that time.

Teams used to start slow during those days. 250 used to be a defendable total.

 

[Buffet]

I have watched World Cup 1999 live.

Pakistan had the strongest team. Both Pakistan and South Africa had better teams than Australia.

I have watched too. No great team loses so many games in one WC.

Aus had a better team than Pakistan, mainly due to Pakistan having a pathetic batting.

 

[Buffet]

Wasti and Abdur Razzaq were fine for that time.

Teams used to start slow during those days. 250 used to be a defendable total.

And who would score 250 runs for Pakistan?

Pakistan batting failed to chase 220 odd runs against India and lost.
Pakistan batting failed to chase 220 odd runs against BD and lost.
Pakistan set target of 220 runs and lost against SA
To top all of this, Pakistan's batting set a target of 130 odd runs in Final.

 

[sweep_shot]

And who would score 250 runs for Pakistan?

Pakistan batting failed to chase 220 odd runs against India and lost.
Pakistan batting failed to chase 220 odd runs against BD and lost.
Pakistan set target of 220 runs and lost against SA
To top all of this, Pakistan's batting set a target of 130 odd runs in Final.

I was referring to those times. Not just for Pakistan.

250 was indeed a competitive score in the late-90's.

 

[sweep_shot]

And who would score 250 runs for Pakistan?

Pakistan batting failed to chase 220 odd runs against India and lost.
Pakistan batting failed to chase 220 odd runs against BD and lost.
Pakistan set target of 220 runs and lost against SA
To top all of this, Pakistan's batting set a target of 130 odd runs in Final.

By the way, check the game against NZ in the semi-final. Pakistan were 242/1. Also, they scored 250+ against Aussies during group stage.

They had Saeed Anwar, Inzi, Mohammed Yousuf, and Moin Khan. They were all decent ODI batsmen.

Apart from Wasti and Abdur Razzaq, their batting was solid (regardless of how they did).

 

[Zaz]

Pakistans batting was poor in that world cup in 1999 and that was why it failed and tbf didnt deserve the world cup

Only anwar had a avge above 40 and he was cold throughout barring 2 matches late on where he got centuries against zimbabwe and Nz Moin performed well but if your keepers who bats at 7 is one of your best batters then theres problems

The rest flopped Yousuf didnt play all thr games only a handful, Inzy only performed against aus in the group stage otherwise he was at sea rest of tournament with the movement in english conditions

Ijaz and Malik flopped throughout with no notable scores whatsoever and pretty much that was the end of their careers

Razzaq and Afridi didnt do much with the bat

The batting was poor throughout

 

[Buffet]

By the way, check the game against NZ in the semi-final. Pakistan were 242/1. Also, they scored 250+ against Aussies during group stage.

They had Saeed Anwar, Inzi, Mohammed Yousuf, and Moin Khan. They were all decent ODI batsmen.

Apart from Wasti and Abdur Razzaq, their batting was solid (regardless of how they did).

1996 - 1999 period,

Anwar - He was world class

Inzzi - Mid 30s avg with SR of 70 - His world cup record was even worse.

Moyo - He had around 500 ODI runs by then and half of that was against Zim. Simply said he was a newbie without much of record.

Moin - He should have never batted so high as batsman.

Add wasti and Razzaq - Nothing to talk about them.

Except Anwar, line was bang ordinary and it was reflected in collapse every other match even outside of WC. Yes, some time they used to click, but this line up was expected to collapse often and it did. You are citing 2 games where did bat well, but they collapsed in 4-5 other games in the same WC.

 

[sweep_shot]

1996 - 1999 period,

Anwar - He was world class

Inzzi - Mid 30s avg with SR of 70 - His world cup record was even worse.

Moyo - He had around 500 ODI runs by then and half of that was against Zim. Simply said he was a newbie without much of record.

Moin - He should have never batted so high as batsman.

Add wasti and Razzaq - Nothing to talk about them.

Except Anwar, line was bang ordinary and it was reflected in collapse every other match even outside of WC. Yes, some time they used to click, but this line up was expected to collapse often and it did. You are citing 2 games where did bat well, but they collapsed in 4-5 other games in the same WC.

All teams had batting collapses in that tournament. It was a bowler's tournament. How many 250+ scores were there? See by yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Cricket_World_Cup#Group_stage.

 

[JaDed]

Ultimately Pakistan threw away (excuse the pun) the 96 and 99 world cups. These were the only two world cups they had a very high chance of winning with matchwinners in both bowling and batting.

2003 they were an ageing team that had could be world beaters for a few games. They didn’t even manage that due to all the instability and infighting in the lead up to the tournament.

2007 was one of the worst performances. They didn’t even turn up.

2011 was a bit of a mirage. They appeared to do well in reaching the semi finals but it was obvious they didn’t quite have the quality to win the World Cup. Even if they won the semi, I think SL would have probably beaten them. But you never know. Was quite a poor standard of World Cup that tournament.

2015 - poor, very poor odi team. Misbah captain, nuff said

2019 - personally they were a bit unlucky. Their slow start handicapped them but towards the end they were playing some really good cricket.

1987 as well.

 

[JaDed]

I have watched World Cup 1999 live.

Pakistan had the strongest team. Both Pakistan and South Africa had better teams than Australia.

Nope.. Aus was a better team. SA were the only other who were better or equal.

 

[sweep_shot]

Nope.. Aus was a better team. SA were the only other who were better or equal.

Aussies were not better than Pakistan.

Pakistan had Anwar, Inzi, Yousuf, Salim Malik, Ijaz, Afridi, Moin, Azhar Mahmood, Shoaib Akthar, Wasim, and Waqar. That's an elite team at their peak.

Australia were average then. Allan Donald gifted them the World Cup.

 

[Buffet]

All teams had batting collapses in that tournament.

There is difference. Not sure how closely you watched WC of 1999.

Aus lost one game while chasing out of 6 games. The one game Aus lost while chasing and still scored 250+.While chasing Aus had zero collapse like Pakistan had many times.

Look at it another way,

List of 250+ runs in 1999 WC - How many Pakistani appear here with decent record?
.


Saying that all teams had batting line up like Pakistan and used to collapse like Pakistan is simply not true. Pakistan just had a poor batting line up.

 

[sweep_shot]

Saying that all teams had batting line up like Pakistan and used to collapse like Pakistan is simply not true. Pakistan just had a poor batting line up.

Anwar, Inzi, Ijaz, Yousuf, Salim Malik, Moin - does this look like a poor lineup to you? This was a pretty decent ODI batting unit.

You can say they underperformed but that was not a poor lineup.

Also, Kluesener's average was inflated.

 

[Buffet]

Aussies were not better than Pakistan.

Pakistan had Anwar, Inzi, Yousuf, Salim Malik, Ijaz, Afridi, Moin, Azhar Mahmood, Shoaib Akthar, Wasim, and Waqar. That's an elite team at their peak.

Australia were average then. Allan Donald gifted them the World Cup.

Only SA had elite team if you look at record of second half of 90s.

Pakistan won 54 games out of 110 games from Jan 1996- Dec 1999 against top 8 teams. I won't call a team elite if team is losing ever second game.

 

[Jazx]

Nope.. Aus was a better team. SA were the only other who were better or equal.

Australia's dominance started after that 99 final. Before that they were just a very good team but not unbeatable and no way better than SA & Pak.

 

[Buffet]

Anwar, Inzi, Ijaz, Yousuf, Salim Malik, Moin - does this look like a poor lineup to you? This was a pretty decent ODI batting unit.

You can say they underperformed but that was not a poor lineup.

Also, Kluesener's average was inflated.

Nah, it wasn't just WC. Let's take entire sample size of late 90s with 100 plus matches.

Can you explain the puzzle here. How come ATG bowling + decent batting according to you lost every second game in late 90s?

Explanation is batting being pathetic. Not decent, otherwise with that kind of bowling, Pakistan should have had a better record. Losing every other game makes you just an average team. Bowling was certainly not average. Problem was batting.

 

[TheSultan]

There is difference. Not sure how closely you watched WC of 1999.

Aus lost one game while chasing out of 6 games. The one game Aus lost while chasing and still scored 250+.While chasing Aus had zero collapse like Pakistan had many times.

Look at it another way,

List of 250+ runs in 1999 WC - How many Pakistani appear here with decent record?
.
View attachment 116351

Saying that all teams had batting line up like Pakistan and used to collapse like Pakistan is simply not true. Pakistan just had a poor batting line up.

It doesn’t matter. Cricket is not only about batting - case in point India at the 1999 World Cup.

It was a bowler’s World Cup for most of the tournament. Pakistan just needed a good enough batting line up to post a score to defend. And they did all tournament in the crunch games.

They didn’t manage that in the final and that’s a failure of the team in THAT match. The overall combination was fine. Saeed, Inzi, Ijaz and Yousuf were a very good core. The fact they didn’t all perform and yousuf getting injured couldn’t be predicted beforehand.

 

[Buffet]

Australia's dominance started after that 99 final. Before that they were just a very good team but not unbeatable and no way better than SA & Pak.

Yes, Aus dominance started later, but Pakistan wasn't some elite team in late 90s. I see many posters have recollection of Pakistan being a great ODI team in late 90s, but that's not true. Pakistan had average record in ODI.

Here is record of teams before playing WC in late 90s,

 

[Buffet]

It doesn’t matter. Cricket is not only about batting - case in point India at the 1999 World Cup.

It was a bowler’s World Cup for most of the tournament. Pakistan just needed a good enough batting line up to post a score to defend. And they did all tournament in the crunch games.

They didn’t manage that in the final and that’s a failure of the team in THAT match. The overall combination was fine. Saeed, Inzi, Ijaz and Yousuf were a very good core. The fact they didn’t all perform and yousuf getting injured couldn’t be predicted beforehand.

No, it's not about just batting or just bowling.

Pakistan had average record in late 90s and it was despite having great bowling. Culprit was batting and it was not just WC. It was same situation outside of WC as well. See the W/L ratio of all teams in late 90s.

With decent batting, Pakistan's record would have been substantially better due to top class bowing.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

You have to be a highly consistent team beating top sides in the run up towards a World Cup to have a chance. Even then, lesser teams can have inspired runs to knock you out

Pakistan have never been No.1 favourites at any World Cup but atleast in 83, 87 and 92, you could say they had played consistent top quality cricket going into those Cups.

It never happened after that. Just glance through the ODI record of Pakistan in the run up to these World Cups.

Take the run up to 1996 World Cup from September 1994

1. Singer world series 1994
Pakistan lost to OZ and Lanka, crashed out before final

2. Wills triangular series 1994
Beaten by Australia in the final

3. Mandela Trophy
Lost both finals to South Africa

4. Tour of Zimbabwe
3 match odi series drawn 1-1

5. Asia Cup 1995
Pakistan knocked out. India beat SL in
final
6. SL tour of Pakistan
Lost 2-1 in ODI series

7 . Sharjah Champions trophy 1995
Knocked out . Final was SL vs WI

8. Pakistan tour of New Zealand
ODI series drawn 2-2.

Basically, PAK had not won anything in this period - bilaterals or tournaments. That does bot look like the record of a team that had any chance at that World Cup.

 

[TheSultan]

You have to be a highly consistent team beating top sides in the run up towards a World Cup to have a chance. Even then, lesser teams can have inspired runs to knock you out

Pakistan have never been No.1 favourites at any World Cup but atleast in 83, 87 and 92, you could say they had played consistent top quality cricket going into those Cups.

It never happened after that. Just glance through the ODI record of Pakistan in the run up to these World Cups.

Take the run up to 1996 World Cup from September 1994

1. Singer world series 1994
Pakistan lost to OZ and Lanka, crashed out before final

2. Wills triangular series 1994
Beaten by Australia in the final

3. Mandela Trophy
Lost both finals to South Africa

4. Tour of Zimbabwe
3 match odi series drawn 1-1

5. Asia Cup 1995
Pakistan knocked out. India beat SL in
final
6. SL tour of Pakistan
Lost 2-1 in ODI series

7 . Sharjah Champions trophy 1995
Knocked out . Final was SL vs WI

8. Pakistan tour of New Zealand
ODI series drawn 2-2.

Basically, PAK had not won anything in this period - bilaterals or tournaments. That does bot look like the record of a team that had any chance at that World Cup.

I don’t take ODI bilateral or tri series results that seriously in the 90s for any team with all the fixing that was going on

 

[TheSultan]

No, it's not about just batting or just bowling.

Pakistan had average record in late 90s and it was despite having great bowling. Culprit was batting and it was not just WC. It was same situation outside of WC as well. See the W/L ratio of all teams in late 90s.

With decent batting, Pakistan's record would have been substantially better due to top class bowing.

Yes of course it would have been better with a better line up but it was what it was. You can’t pick batsmen out of the trees can you. I still believe there was enough quality there.

 

[sweep_shot]

You can dig stats all you want. But, Pakistan were considered as an unpredictable heavyweight team in the 90's. Only team they genuinely struggled against was South Africa.

Also, match-fixing was a real culprit in the 90's. I wonder how many games Pakistan lost due to fixings. Not just Pakistan but also other teams were involved too possibly. Look at what happened to Hansie Cronje. Look at Azharuddin.

 

[Buffet]

You can dig stats all you want. But, Pakistan were considered as an unpredictable heavyweight team in the 90's. Only team they genuinely struggled against was South Africa.

I put stats simply to correct misconception that Pakistan was an elite team alongside SA coming into 1999 WC. I have watched most games in 90s. Pakistan in early 90s was not same in late 90s.

 

[JaDed]

Aussies were not better than Pakistan.

Pakistan had Anwar, Inzi, Yousuf, Salim Malik, Ijaz, Afridi, Moin, Azhar Mahmood, Shoaib Akthar, Wasim, and Waqar. That's an elite team at their peak.

Australia were average then. Allan Donald gifted them the World Cup.

Just listing out the players doesn’t make Pak better, ever since Aus became the first to defeated w Indies in West Indies they were on an upward path , not to forget reaching finals of 1996wc.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I don’t take ODI bilateral or tri series results that seriously in the 90s for any team with all the fixing that was going on

You need not take it seriously but there were teams which were winning consistently going into that Cup and were therefore better placed to win.

India, Australia and SA were the most consistent sides going into that World Cup and Windies were pretty decent too.

Not winning 8 consecutive odi bilateral/tri series before a world cup cannot be penned down to fixing .

 

[sweep_shot]

You need not take it seriously but there were teams which were winning consistently going into that Cup and were therefore better placed to win.

India, Australia and SA were the most consistent sides going into that World Cup and Windies were pretty decent too.

India? In the 90's? Nope.

India were quite poor in the 90's. Pakistan used to dominate India in the 90's (minus the World Cup games).

 

[sweep_shot]

Just listing out the players doesn’t make Pak better, ever since Aus became the first to defeated w Indies in West Indies they were on an upward path , not to forget reaching finals of 1996wc.

Most of those listed names were legends.

Australia beat West Indies because West Indies started to decline. Aussies were not very dominant in the 90's. They were good but not dominant.

They reached 1996 final because WI choked in semi-final (just like South Africa choked in 1999). They were not dominant by any means.

90's Australia was a bit like how New Zealand is in today's time.

 

[PakLFC]

Never ending Imran Khan complex that most Pak fans suffer from. The constant quarreling within the PCB that doesn't even let our Cricket settle. Ex players are always poking their nose where it doesn't belong. Unlike us other teams let go off their great players and have stability within their cricketing structure.

 

[wrongun]

Aussies were not better than Pakistan.

Pakistan had Anwar, Inzi, Yousuf, Salim Malik, Ijaz, Afridi, Moin, Azhar Mahmood, Shoaib Akthar, Wasim, and Waqar. That's an elite team at their peak.

Australia were average then. Allan Donald gifted them the World Cup.

Stephen Waugh (c), Shane Warne (vc), Michael Bevan, Adam Dale, Damien Fleming, Adam Gilchrist, Brendon Julian, Shane Lee, Darren Lehmann, Glenn McGrath, Damien Martyn, Tom Moody, Ricky Ponting, Paul Reiffel, Mark Waugh.

Pretty average looking lineup.

I daresay Moody & Reiffel stack up pretty well against guys like Azhar Mahmood, Afridi etc (the mid rank guys). Wasim, Waqar, Inzi, Anwar... McGrath, Warne, Gilchrist, S Waugh...

The greats match up but overall quality, Oz is streets ahead.

 

[wrongun]

Most of those listed names were legends.

Australia beat West Indies because West Indies started to decline. Aussies were not very dominant in the 90's. They were good but not dominant.

They reached 1996 final because WI choked in semi-final (just like South Africa choked in 1999). They were not dominant by any means.

90's Australia was a bit like how New Zealand is in today's time.

Except that NZ does not have any atg bowlers and Oz 90s had TWO that are undisputed ATG's in McGrath and Warne. And then exceptional back ups in McGill, Gillespie, McDermott etc (200+ test wickets each).

The batting had Tayor, Slater, Boon, Border, S Waugh, M Waugh, Gilchrist. We had guys with 10 000 FC runs in Shield & county who couldn't crack the batting lineup.

Any of those would walk into NZ team and be one of their ATG batsmen.

Australia beat Pakistan & WI & SA in the 90s because we were bloody good. Two of the greatest bowlers the world has ever seen, several ATG batsmen and good depth across all positions.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

India? In the 90's? Nope.

India were quite poor in the 90's. Pakistan used to dominate India in the 90's (minus the World Cup games).

Generally, yes. But India were a much more consistent side that had won quite a lot going into the 96 World Cup. They had more of a chance than Pakistan did.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Generally, yes. But India were a much more consistent side that had won quite a lot going into the 96 World Cup. They had more of a chance than Pakistan did.

[MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION]

https://web.archive.org/web/2013032...cket.com/match_zone/odi_ranking.php?year=1996

This is the ODI ranking of teams in early 96.

 

[sweep_shot]

[MENTION=141306]sweep_shot[/MENTION]

https://web.archive.org/web/2013032...cket.com/match_zone/odi_ranking.php?year=1996

This is the ODI ranking of teams in early 96.

Generally, yes. But India were a much more consistent side that had won quite a lot going into the 96 World Cup. They had more of a chance than Pakistan did.

I know what you are saying.

But, 90's cricket was more than just stats. It was a different period.

90's Pakistan can't just be described by stats alone.

You also have to weigh in match-fixing issues. How many games were fixed? We may never know.

 

[sweep_shot]

Stephen Waugh (c), Shane Warne (vc), Michael Bevan, Adam Dale, Damien Fleming, Adam Gilchrist, Brendon Julian, Shane Lee, Darren Lehmann, Glenn McGrath, Damien Martyn, Tom Moody, Ricky Ponting, Paul Reiffel, Mark Waugh.

Pretty average looking lineup.

I daresay Moody & Reiffel stack up pretty well against guys like Azhar Mahmood, Afridi etc (the mid rank guys). Wasim, Waqar, Inzi, Anwar... McGrath, Warne, Gilchrist, S Waugh...

The greats match up but overall quality, Oz is streets ahead.

Adam Gilchrist was quite new to the scene in the 90's. He was just starting. Martyn and Ponting were also not big names at that time.

Only big names were Steve Waugh, Warne, Bevan, McGrath, and perhaps Mark Waugh.

Again, I am talking about that period only (1995 to 1999).

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

That’s a bit chicken n egg. The NatWest final was a scar from the World Cup final.

9/10 times doesn’t come in to it in a knock out tournament. Are you good enough to beat the other team, the answer is a resounding yes as they already beat them in a close group game.

Australia had the momentum and Pakistan probably still would have lost had they been at their best that day. But to say Pakistan didn’t have a chance is wrong.

I think the real disappointment was that Pakistan folded so easily so they couldn’t test the resolve of the Australians if the match got close.

It’s not as if Pakistan got out only due to the irresistible brilliance of Mcgrath, Warne, Waugh brothers, Gilly etc. Some of our players threw their wickets away to Reiffel, Fleming and Tom Moody and to some shoddy shots! It’s shameful really that Pakistan folded so easily in that manner.

Yet Pakistan lost to Australia in every knockout game in every format after that match.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

Most of those listed names were legends.

Australia beat West Indies because West Indies started to decline. Aussies were not very dominant in the 90's. They were good but not dominant.

They reached 1996 final because WI choked in semi-final (just like South Africa choked in 1999). They were not dominant by any means.

90's Australia was a bit like how New Zealand is in today's time.

Australia in the 90s won away in every country except India. They Whitewashed Pakistan in Pakistan before the 99 worldcup.

Pakistan collapsed in a similar fashion in the natwest final two years later against Australia. It was more about incompetence against great bowling than a mere mental block. Pakistan regularly collapsed against good bowling in those days.

 

[sweep_shot]

Australia in the 90s won away in every country except India. They Whitewashed Pakistan in Pakistan before the 99 worldcup.

That is inaccurate. Australia won 1-0. Not a whitewash.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

That is inaccurate. Australia won 1-0. Not a whitewash.

Australia whitewashed Pakistan in the ODIs. As for the fixing argument, there's no guarantee that Pakistan would have won even if they didnt fix. Works both ways. We only have actual results and trends to go by.

 

[sweep_shot]

Australia whitewashed Pakistan in the ODIs. As for the fixing argument, there's no guarantee that Pakistan would have won even if they didnt fix. Works both ways. We only have actual results and trends to go by.

I was referring to Test. They won 1-0.

Pakistan also went to Australia in the 90's and won a tri-series (involving Australia and West Indies). Australia didn't even make the final.

 

[TheSultan]

Yet Pakistan lost to Australia in every knockout game in every format after that match.

After that match yes and? What is your exact point here? Pakistan destroyed Aus in 1997 in the Carlton and United series. So it’s not as if they weren’t capable of beating Aus in 1999.

After 99 was a mental block that we probably haven’t ever shaken off even to this day it affects them

 

[TheSultan]

Was it? They had a terrible opener in Wasti whose SR was Test level in ODI's.

They somehow had Razzaq batting 3rd for them which absolutely made no sense and he was terrible at that position. Shockingly played 27 matches at #3 with a Test level SR (55) and rubbish average (27).

Laughable top order unit. However, their bowling group was superb and that is what got them into the finals.

That was their strategy at the time. Play out the new ball, get to a decent total and let the bowling take care of the rest. It was a decent strategy in a World Cup in England where scores of 300 were very rare.

Not everyone can play how you want them to play. If they wanted someone with a higher strike rate up top they could have easily promoted afridi up there. That would have been the strategy if it was played in the UAE as they showed in the tri series a few months before the tournament.

I don’t understand what point people are trying to make 23 years later. Pakistan got to the final playing whatever way they played - they employed a strategy which for the most part worked. They had a shocker in the final and that’s fine, it doesn’t mean they weren’t good enough.

 

[Nasty Naz]

That was their strategy at the time. Play out the new ball, get to a decent total and let the bowling take care of the rest. It was a decent strategy in a World Cup in England where scores of 300 were very rare.

Not everyone can play how you want them to play. If they wanted someone with a higher strike rate up top they could have easily promoted afridi up there. That would have been the strategy if it was played in the UAE as they showed in the tri series a few months before the tournament.

I don’t understand what point people are trying to make 23 years later. Pakistan got to the final playing whatever way they played - they employed a strategy which for the most part worked. They had a shocker in the final and that’s fine, it doesn’t mean they weren’t good enough.

Did I say they weren't good enough. It was response to a post saying they had the strongest team which I don't think was the case. Not being the strongest doesn't mean they weren't good enough to win, they were. It was why they made the finals on the back of a superb bowling attack.

The batting was mediocre and I don't think the conditions is a strong enough justifications to have players like Wasti & Razzaq in the top order batting at 50 SR. Yeah, the scores were lower back then and no one is expecting 90 SR but a 50 SR is beyond bad. The batting order had tons of cracks and it showed in the finals.

I think the strategy/mindset is also what followed for decades after and has continued to haunt Pakistan by playing it "safe" and having low SR up the order in an attempt to save wickets early on. It's how Pakistan fell so far behind the pack.

 

[JaDed]

I know what you are saying.

But, 90's cricket was more than just stats. It was a different period.

90's Pakistan can't just be described by stats alone.

You also have to weigh in match-fixing issues. How many games were fixed? We may never know.

So if Pak loses its coz match fixing, and 90s Pak was beyond stats lol.

Maybe stats should never be used to measure PCT, let’s declare them the best.

 

[JaDed]

I was referring to Test. They won 1-0.

Pakistan also went to Australia in the 90's and won a tri-series (involving Australia and West Indies). Australia didn't even make the final.

In that logic India beat Pak in Dhaka 1998.. what is this random series logic.

 

[JaDed]

Pakistan and Saffers had my fav player in 1990s, but blindly glorifying a individuals and doubting the greatest ODI team of Aus is remarkable.

There were only two greatest teams in cricket WI and Aus.

 

[TheSultan]

Did I say they weren't good enough. It was response to a post saying they had the strongest team which I don't think was the case. Not being the strongest doesn't mean they weren't good enough to win, they were. It was why they made the finals on the back of a superb bowling attack.

The batting was mediocre and I don't think the conditions is a strong enough justifications to have players like Wasti & Razzaq in the top order batting at 50 SR. Yeah, the scores were lower back then and no one is expecting 90 SR but a 50 SR is beyond bad. The batting order had tons of cracks and it showed in the finals.

I think the strategy/mindset is also what followed for decades after and has continued to haunt Pakistan by playing it "safe" and having low SR up the order in an attempt to save wickets early on. It's how Pakistan fell so far behind the pack.

Razzi as he has shown is a monster hitter. They could have even used him as a pinch hitter instead of a pinch anchor which he became in that World Cup. That strategy worked very well in the group game vs Aus. It’s not that they didn’t have the resources, it’s just what they wanted to do for better or worse. Maybe it became a bit tired at the end , but they only used it when an early wicket fell. E.g they didn’t use Razzi at 3 on the semi final when the openers gave a great start.

As for strategy comparison with the following decades to current day, the difference is, in those days Pakistan employed strategies based on the conditions. They used to play a lot faster in subcontinent type conditions and employed more positive batting tactics. The problem with the current teams is they have this default tuk tuk strategy for everything and is probably why they are a middling team.

 

[TheSultan]

Pakistan and Saffers had my fav player in 1990s, but blindly glorifying a individuals and doubting the greatest ODI team of Aus is remarkable.

There were only two greatest teams in cricket WI and Aus.

I don’t think anyone is doubting the aussie team but calling that 99 team the greatest ODI team is not right. They became one of the greatest in the following few years. It’s once they changed Reiffel, Moody and Fleming they became this all time level team.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I was referring to Test. They won 1-0.

Pakistan also went to Australia in the 90's and won a tri-series (involving Australia and West Indies). Australia didn't even make the final.

Tests have no relevance to World Cups in ODI format. That tri series was in January 97. Australia whitewashed Pakistan in either October or November 98. You tell me which is more indicative of better form going into the World Cup.

Also, Australia had replaced Taylor and Healy with the likes of Gilchrist mid 97 and their performances improved by leaps and bounds.

 

[Jazx]

Generally, yes. But India were a much more consistent side that had won quite a lot going into the 96 World Cup. They had more of a chance than Pakistan did.

Yes india was consistent in winning at home and loosing everything overseas in 90s.

 

[Jazx]

Yes, Aus dominance started later, but Pakistan wasn't some elite team in late 90s. I see many posters have recollection of Pakistan being a great ODI team in late 90s, but that's not true. Pakistan had average record in ODI.

Here is record of teams before playing WC in late 90s,

View attachment 116352

I just meant to say that before that final both teams have there chance and pakistan have slightly upper hand because they beat them in group stage. And if you talk about overall 90s Australia was just good not the beast like post 99 wc. On papers throughout the 90s pakistan was better than Australia(except in australian conditions)and SA were the best of the them all.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Yes india was consistent in winning at home and loosing everything overseas in 90s.

96 World Cup was in Asia so what you said is quite irrelevant.

 

[TheSultan]

It seems for some Indian fans, the scars of the 90s still linger.

23 years and there’s still a lot of salt!

Isn’t it time you concentrated on your current team which is pretty good?

Bringing up all these nerdy stats doesn’t really prove much. The 1990s, especially bilateral series really have no significance. 3 leaders of some of the top nations were banned due to match fixing. And plenty of other players’ indiscretions were brushed under the carpet. Warne and Mark Waugh gave weather reports and pitch reports. Yea right. As if that couldn’t be obtained from the met office or the groundsmen.

Look at Pakistan, they were notorious for “losing” dead rubbers. Look at the Sharjah series before the World Cup. Breezed in to the final and then “lost” some dead rubbers against India and England. Their win loss ratio took a hit but they won the tournament.

 

[Justcrazy]

1996 team selection was poor , Miandad should not be there , instead a batting spin all rounder should have been in.

Aamir Sohail
Saeed Anwar
Ijaz Ahmed
Inzamam
Salim Malik
Rashid Latif
Batting all rounder
Wasim Akram
Saqlain
Mushtaq Ahmed
Waqar Younis.

 

[Buffet]

And if you talk about overall 90s Australia was just good not the beast like post 99 wc.

I never talked about over all 90s. I was talking about late 90s in context of 99 WC. In early 90s, Pakistan had a better team and Pakistan's performance reflects that.

Aus really started showing up in later half of 90s and then kept getting stronger.

 

[Liverpool_Faizan]

Winning a World Cup isn’t indicative of how great an ODI side is. Although winning 3 in a trot like Australia obv is. The World Cup is a tournament and one bad day can be the difference.

The better question is why hasn’t Pakistan been consistently number 1 in rankings and why haven’t there been better series results.

 

[daytrader]

One of our major reasons for WC debacles is having a weak board that can't make tough calls. In most of our WC campaigns we get one or two surprise TTF selections that don't merit a spot in the squad let alone a playing XI.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

It seems for some Indian fans, the scars of the 90s still linger.

23 years and there’s still a lot of salt!

Isn’t it time you concentrated on your current team which is pretty good?

Bringing up all these nerdy stats doesn’t really prove much. The 1990s, especially bilateral series really have no significance. 3 leaders of some of the top nations were banned due to match fixing. And plenty of other players’ indiscretions were brushed under the carpet. Warne and Mark Waugh gave weather reports and pitch reports. Yea right. As if that couldn’t be obtained from the met office or the groundsmen.

Look at Pakistan, they were notorious for “losing” dead rubbers. Look at the Sharjah series before the World Cup. Breezed in to the final and then “lost” some dead rubbers against India and England. Their win loss ratio took a hit but they won the tournament.

Au contraire, it is usually Pakistani fans who go on about the 96 and the 99 World Cups as if it was the birthright of that PAK team to win those World Cups.

If they were actually that good, they would have won those 2 cups instead of hiding behind lame excuses like match fixing, not motivated, team squabbles etc.

 

[jeetu]

1996 team selection was poor , Miandad should not be there , instead a batting spin all rounder should have been in.

Aamir Sohail
Saeed Anwar
Ijaz Ahmed
Inzamam
Salim Malik
Rashid Latif
Batting all rounder
Wasim Akram
Saqlain
Mushtaq Ahmed
Waqar Younis.

Absence of Wasim Akram against India in 96 WC was big factor. Still Pakistan were favorite due to Anwar/Sohail partnership while chasing. Playing Miandad for nostagia was also big error.

 

[TheSultan]

Au contraire, it is usually Pakistani fans who go on about the 96 and the 99 World Cups as if it was the birthright of that PAK team to win those World Cups.

If they were actually that good, they would have won those 2 cups instead of hiding behind lame excuses like match fixing, not motivated, team squabbles etc.

Who’s making excuses? This is a thread about Pakistan cricket and you’re all over it. Move on

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Absence of Wasim Akram against India in 96 WC was big factor. Still Pakistan were favorite due to Anwar/Sohail partnership while chasing. Playing Miandad for nostagia was also big error.

Not that big a factor. Wasim was in poor form and didnt doanything against South Africa or England. Was injured, so he didnt bowl against NZ. His replacement, Ata-ur Rehman was the best seamer for Pakistan and took 1/40 or something.

 

[Jazx]

I never talked about over all 90s. I was talking about late 90s in context of 99 WC. In early 90s, Pakistan had a better team and Pakistan's performance reflects that.

Aus really started showing up in later half of 90s and then kept getting stronger.

Not really in the late 90s, all other major teams were giving tough competition to them during that phase. If I remember correctly just before that 99 WC only they had an ODI series against declining west indies which was drawn.

 

[Jazx]

96 World Cup was in Asia so what you said is quite irrelevant.

Yes it was in Asia and the only match which India played outside was in Sri lanka and they lost that.
Anyways I was not talking about the world cups only. Overall this was the fact in 90s with India weather it was ODIs or tests.

 

[Manunited18]

One of the major hurdle was the absolute GUN Australia team from 99 world cup to 2011 world cup, they were unbeatable in world cups.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Not Only did Pakistan win that world cup but they also went on to defend it in the year 2006 against India. Good old days.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1764937038887801085

 

[mominsaigol]

I've been watching cricket since 2011. So I can only comment from 2011-2024.

The main reason is

A) Other teams have better preparation.

B) other teams have gelled units.

C) Money( Pakistan isn't a rich nation, Mukesh ambani alone has 1/3rd of Pakistan's entire wealth and his company reliance has more money then Pakistan combined, let alone all of India or other powerful nations like Australia, UK etc), More money means better prepared pitches, better coaching staff, better training and education for players and overall better culture for competition.

Theirs a reason SENA and India tend to rule.

D) Luck: Luck plays an important part to some extent as well. 2023 World cup, Aus wasn't really in the condition to win 2023 wc, they lucked out with a lot of Superman miracle wonders like maxwell's 200. But Luck can only get you so far. After aus reached semi and finals, they breezed through.

Pakistan doesn't capitalise on Luck given to them, they had a lifeline in 2022 t20 wc reaching the final despite losing 60% of their matches and still weren't able to get over the line.

 

[Buffet]

I've been watching cricket since 2011. So I can only comment from 2011-2024.

The main reason is

A) Other teams have better preparation.

B) other teams have gelled units.

C) Money( Pakistan isn't a rich nation, Mukesh ambani alone has 1/3rd of Pakistan's entire wealth and his company reliance has more money then Pakistan combined, let alone all of India or other powerful nations like Australia, UK etc), More money means better prepared pitches, better coaching staff, better training and education for players and overall better culture for competition.

Theirs a reason SENA and India tend to rule.

D) Luck: Luck plays an important part to some extent as well. 2023 World cup, Aus wasn't really in the condition to win 2023 wc, they lucked out with a lot of Superman miracle wonders like maxwell's 200. But Luck can only get you so far. After aus reached semi and finals, they breezed through.

Pakistan doesn't capitalise on Luck given to them, they had a lifeline in 2022 t20 wc reaching the final despite losing 60% of their matches and still weren't able to get over the line.

Reliance market cap ( accumulated worth of company from year 1 to 50 years or whatever)

GDP of Pakistan (output produced by entire Pakistan in one year)

Not apple to apple comparison. Mukesh Ambani does not have 1/3rd of Pakistan's wealth. Pakistan's wealth is far greater.

Having said that your post is directioanally correct. More resources will certainly help.

 

[moghul]

Lack of leadership.

 

[mominsaigol]

Reliance market cap ( accumulated worth of company from year 1 to 50 years or whatever)

GDP of Pakistan (output produced by entire Pakistan in one year)

Not apple to apple comparison. Mukesh Ambani does not have 1/3rd of Pakistan's wealth. Pakistan's wealth is far greater.

Having said that your post is directioanally correct. More resources will certainly help.

Fair but 348B is still far lower considering if reliance was to sell, it would sell for 1T lol. But fair point and yes ik, no one can afford 1T in cash or capital or stock.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Stay on topic guys. No need to discuss ambani's and reliance etc here.